Did the photgrapher intend to snap her? Or was she just passing by? Was her life saved as the photograph was taken? Shortly afterwards? Quite a while later? Was she prevented from dying by avoiding an accident? Was the photograph proof that she was where she claimed? Was she accused of a crime?

Did the photgrapher intend to snap her? yes - I guess I could have said noish to her being a model Or was she just passing by? noWas her life saved as the photograph was taken? no Shortly afterwards? yes Quite a while later? I would say a few hoursWas she prevented from dying by avoiding an accident? no Was the photograph proof that she was where she claimed? no Was she accused of a crime? no

Was the picture developed? If the camera had been lost immediately after the photograph was taken, would she still have survived? Is it relevant how she would have died? something falling on her? her falling on something? illness? car crash? attacked by an animal?

Was the picture developed? yesIf the camera had been lost immediately after the photograph was taken, would she still have survived? noIs it relevant how she would have died? yes something falling on her? her falling on something? illness? car crash? attacked by an animal? none of those

Is the identity of the photographer relevant? Did he/she literally save her life? Was it the existence of the photo which saved her life? Did someone look at the photo and spot something which could have killed her? A snake peeping out of her handbag?

Is the identity of the photographer relevant? no Did he/she literally save her life? yes Was it the existence of the photo which saved her life? yes Did someone look at the photo and spot something which could have killed her? yes A snake peeping out of her handbag? no

Sorry, this happens all the time to me - I always answer as to how I interpret the question and try to prevent false assumptions, but then I review it and think that the answer can actually cause more false assumptionsSo: Bentarm's question: illness? should be yessish

Signs of an illness? YES Something apart from herself? no On her clothing?no something she was carrying? noWas she standing when the photo was taken? walking? sitting? in a car? in a group of other people? no to all

Was she in hospital? no Lying down? yes Was it a regular photograph? yes or more of an x-ray or scan? noWas the sign to do with her skin colour? A skin blemish? A slide of a biopsy? Something about her eyes? none of these

Hi Lynne - Just got back from Berkeley where I rented an oboe, but I'm thinking it's around midnight o'clock where you are now...

She had an illness that is typically fatal if left untreated? Do people usually survive if treatment begins early enough? Cancer? Anything relevant about the photo? Standard film? Digital? Colour? Infra-red film? Still photo?

Hi Lynne - Just got back from Berkeley where I rented an oboe, but I'm thinking it's around midnight o'clock where you are now... Hi Bodo

She had an illness that is typically fatal if left untreated? yes Do people usually survive if treatment begins early enough? yes Cancer? no Anything relevant about the photo? yes Standard film? yes, I would guess so Digital? no Colour? no Infra-red film? no Still photo? yes

Did the photographer have any medical knowledge? Would this be needed to recognise her illness from the photo? Is the illness usually of short duration? long? variable? Is it common? Contagious? Due to circumstances - e.g. surroundings, deprivation? Did she know her photo was being taken? want it? ask for it? accept that it was necessary? Was it taken as part of her work? Was she awake? Were other people photographed at the same time? for the same reason? Was she indoors? outdoors? in a building? vehicle? Was she trying out a new bath? a coffin?

Did the photographer have any medical knowledge? noWould this be needed to recognise her illness from the photo? no- just a sharp mindIs the illness usually of short duration? not sure long? possibly variable? undoubtedly this Is it common? no Contagious? no Due to circumstances - e.g. surroundings, deprivation? no to allDid she know her photo was being taken? I doubt it, but it's possible want it? was glad of it, given the end result ask for it? no accept that it was necessary? if she was aware of it, yesWas it taken as part of her work? noWas she awake? possibly Were other people photographed at the same time? possibly, irrelevant for the same reason? if they were, it would be the same reasonWas she indoors? yes outdoors? no in a building? yes vehicle? noWas she trying out a new bath? no a coffin? yope exploreAny animals involved? no Some can detect illness not apparent to humans, I think...? no - and you're right, they can often detect a diabetic comaWas she lying on something solid? yes moveable? yes mid air? no

Is the part on any limbs? A finger perhaps? this one Her stomach, proving she was breathing? Hair moved by breath? interesting thought but no

************* SPOILER ************

This is an incident that is in my 1895 Strand Magazine within an article about modern photography.

The photographer was asked to take a photo of the woman in her coffin (the reason was not disclosed) and on developing it he saw a blur where her finger was. He knew that if the whole body had moved the whole picture would be blurred, but this indicated actual movement. He went back with a doctor and she was found to be in 'a trance-like state'.

I wasn't sure whether modern cameras would catch the movement of a finger - I am presuming that the exposure time of old cameras made it a certainty which is why people were so rigid when they posed in order not to spoil the photo.

The author insisted this was a true story, but maybe he was aware that some would think it an urban myth. No matter, these instances have been recorded many times, and didn't they used to keep a bell inside a coffin in case of the body waking up? The best awakenings happen at wakes - is that why they are called wakes???